ing and determining whether or not the Hoover Commission's Task Force on Water Resources was right or wrong, but we have the only responsibility of reporting on the Hoover Commission report. Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, if I may

Mr. JONES. Are you saying that we should not consider the recommendations of the task force?

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I am saying that we should consider the recommendations in the Hoover Commission report and those are the items that the Congress, the Members of Congress, are concerned with at this time and that is what is before Congress.

Mr. JONES. The Hoover Commission spent a quarter of a million dollars sending this task force scurrying over the country.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. The theory of the task force concept, in my estimation, is to get background for, and other material from which the Hoover Commission, as such, could develop their opinions and recommendations.

Mr. JONES. It would be impossible for the committee to undertake this broad consideration without going into the same subject matter and going over the same review of the same subjects.

Yes, Mr. Reusss?

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief statement as to my understanding.

My understanding is that this subcommittee has the duty not only of reviewing the recommendations of the Hoover Commission proper, but has the duty of reviewing the recommendation of the task force. I believe that to be the case because of the letter of transmittal dated June 15, 1955, and signed by Mr. Herbert Hoover, Chairman, which letter of transmittal is directed to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, and is contained on page iii of volume 1, entitled "Task Force Report on Water Resources and Power, Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government," and which letter of transmittal addressed to the Speaker of the House

states:

** the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government * * * submits herewith to the Congress a report of the Task Force on Water Resources and Power ***

Now, I think in view of that submittal by Mr. Hoover to the Congress, as I understand the work of our subcommittee, we may, and indeed must consider the task-force conclusions and recommendations as well as those of the Hoover Commission proper, because both were submitted to the Congress.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, may I make a request that we read that whole letter into the record, rather than just have a part of it? Mr. JONES. Let me make this inquiry, since you are raising that question.

If you contend that the task-force report is not a proper subject for the consideration of this committee, why in the first instance was it transmitted to Congress, pursuant to the act of 1953?

2. The recommendations of the Hoover Commission are based entirely on the task-force recommendations, and you are willing to accept and review the part of the task-force reports that were adopted. Mr. LIPSCOMB. That is right.

Mr. JONES. You are not ready to make inquiry as to the basis upon which the assumptions were made.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I feel that for instance in regard to flood control, the Hoover Commission has made two specific recommendations: No. 1, containing several parts, and No. 6. Those are the only two recommendations that affect flood control.

The Hoover Commission background material is in the task-force report, and it will help us go into those two recommendations.

Now, if this committee is going to go further, and recommend their own legislation and not Hoover Commission reports, why, that is another story; but according to your statement

Mr. JONES. We do not have that jurisdiction nor that responsibility. Mr. LIPSCOMB. All we should be concerned with then is the Hoover Commission reports.

ciate

Mr. JONES. I do not see how you are going to understand and appreany flood-control subject unless you review the whole problem. Mr. LIPSCOMB. You just do not want

Mr. JONES. I do not see how you are going to make restrictive inquiries and say, "Now the Hoover Commission report made this specific recommendation," if the subject is not related to the overall problem of flood control.

The thing that we could do then is pack up our bags and go back to Washington.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. This committee has no jurisdiction on the development or the appropriation

Mr. JONES. It does have the responsibility to make intelligent inquiries upon which to base opinions and recommendations; that is a problem we want to explore.

Now, have you got anything further?

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I just recall your statement, I believe in paragraph 4, is entirely correct, that this committee has been given by Chairman Dawson of the full committee the single responsibility of studying and reporting on the Hoover Commission Report on Water Resources and Power.

Mr. JONES. Fine.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. And not the task force report.

Mr. JONES. All right. Our first witness is the Honorable Francis A. Pitkin, head of the State Planning Board, State of Pennsylvaia, representing the Governor.

How are you, Mr. Pitkin?

Mr. PITKIN. Good morning, gentlemen.

Mr. JONES. We are glad to have you here this morning. Won't you have that seat and identify yourself to the reporter?

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS A. PITKIN, A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. PITKIN. I am Francis A. Pitkin, director of the Bureau of Community Development of the Pennsylvania Department of Commerce and consultant to the Pennsylvania State Planning Board. Although I am also chairman of the Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin, I am not really appearing before you in that capacity this morning. I am representing the Commonwealth.

Mr. JONES. May I interrupt? Will we have a representative who will testify for the compact commission?

Mr. PITKIN. Well, we are in this situation, sir. We have not had a meeting of the commission-the Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin-since this hearing was proposed, so that neither I nor our executive secretary are specifically authorized to present a statement here today.

However, both I and our executive secretary are present and we would be very happy to answer any questions, although obviously we cannot make any policy commitments, other than the general policies of INCODEL adopted in the past.

We have not taken any specific action on the Hoover Commission report. That is the problem with which we are faced, from the INCODEL point of view.

Together with the Honorable Maurice K. Goddard, secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters, I have been delegated to represent Governor Leader at this hearing. Governor Leader regrets that the pressure of other commitments has made it quite impossible for him to appear at today's hearing and he has asked that we assure you of his very great interest in the subjects which you are considering.

I would like to say that Secretary Goddard has concurred in the statement which I am about to make and accordingly you may accept this as a joint statement by the two representatives of the Commonwealth who are present today.

It seems particularly appropriate that your hearing be held in this area, which has so recently felt the effects of the terrible disaster of August 18-19, 1955, with which we are all concerned. Obviously it is too early for a complete appraisal of our flood damage, in fact there never can be an accurate and fully complete summary of our staggering losses.

The total loss of life in Pennsylvania is currently estimated at 106. In addition, an untold number of Pennsylvanians suffered from injury and shock.

As to financial damage, several units of government have made fairly complete preliminary estimates. Lehman Township in Pike County-that is the township in which Bushkill is located-estimates its damage to private property, privately owned public utilities and to township roads, bridges, and other public facilities at $1,344,270. This staggering loss is in one of our smaller rural townships with a total population of only 459.

In Bucks County, which is just north of Philadelphia, where 90 homes were completely demolished and 2,500 homes were under water, the county civil-defense organization has made a preliminary estimate indicating a total property damage, both public and private, of $16,838,000, and this total does not include the interstate bridges across the Delaware River.

Our State department of highways has estimated the damage to State highways and intrastate bridges will total $25 million. The department's estimate of Pennsylvania's share of the damage to interstate bridges is $4 million. Both of these figures, of course, are subject to revision as more detailed reports become available.

A very preliminary total of damage to township roads, and borough and city streets not on the State highway system indicates damage of perhaps $10 million.

The secretary of forests and waters estimates that $10 million will be required for emergency and permanent stream channel rectification made necessary by the flood.

Preliminary figures as to damage to municipal water supply facilities and sewage collection and treatment plants adds several million dollars to the damage list.

The Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry and the Department of Commerce have been making a survey of damage to industrial and other commercial establishments. Thus far, and the survey is far from complete, reports reveal a loss to real property, machinery, equipment and inventory of at least $27 million.

Damage to churches and schools is another category for which information is far from complete. Again a conservative estimate would be damage losses exceeding a million dollars.

Flood damage to farms may exceed a million dollars, according to preliminary reports received by the State department of agriculture from county agents in the affected area. This figure of course does not include the serious and permanent losses to farm productivity caused by soil erosion. It is obvious that we will never know the true extent of damage to dwellings, private lands and permanent property.

The Red Cross's estimate is that at least 8,453 families suffered significant losses, 300 or more with complete destruction of their dwellings and several thousand with what would be considered major damage.

A very conservative estimate of the losses in industrial property and permanent property could not be lower than $60 million and may even have to be raised to a hundred million or more.

An overall total of the financial losses suffered by Pennsylvania in the recent flood could not be set at a total of less than $130 million, and it is very probable that as more detailed information becomes available, this overall estimate will be increased, perhaps to $170 million or more.

To this, of course, must be added the incalculable value of the 106 lives lost and the untold suffering and shock, dislocation of activities, interruptions of employment, and loss of production of the many Pennsylvanians directly involved.

The terrible results of Hurricane Diane have taught us all a bitter lesson. By the application of hindsight it is not now difficult to suggest programs and measures which, had they been in effect, would have minimized the horrible consequences of the August 18-19 tropical storm which hit this region. We must of course apply the knowledge we have gained from this shocking experience in laying our plans, if not to prevent a recurrence of a similar disaster in the future, at least to minimize its dangers.

Obviously there has not been time since Diane to formulate a fully detailed program for coping with such situations in the future. There has been time, however, to make a preliminary analysis of the problem. Such an analysis brings into light a few clear-cut facts, including: First, the need for more research designed to determine the probable future pattern, frequency and intensity of hurricanes, and to devise possible measures, if any, for their control. Recent suggestions

by meteorologists that the Atlantic hurricane path has shifted westward and that the eastern coast may expect more frequent visitations, certainly should be fully explored with all the resources at the command of the Federal Government. Furthermore, the suggestion by the eminent scientist, Dr. Irving Langmuir, that the path of hurricanes may be in some degree controllable through "cloud seeding" certainly merits full investigation through federally supported research in this important field.

Second, the need for better flood and hurricane forecasting facilities and services.

It seems obvious that both Federal and State agencies concerned with weather and flood forecasting should be given such financial support that they can increase the number of observation points and provide a more effective, fully integrated warning service.

Third, the need for more effective flood-area zoning.

All types of civil subdivisions in Pennsylvania are authorized to enact and administer zoning ordinances. Regrettably, very few of them have used their power to prevent residential, industrial, or summer-camp development in areas subject to flood hazards. We who are associated with State government recognize our obligation to stimulate a wider and more effective use of these local zoning powers and our obligation to provide the technical advice necessary in determining the extent of hazardous areas.

Fourth, the need for adequate organization and facilities to warn against, and to take such measures as may be advisable to prevent or minimize impending disasters of any kind. We of Pennsylvania are quite proud of the functioning of our State-Federal flood-forecasting service and of our State and local civil-defense organizations during this recent emergency. We are sure, however, that many valuable lessons have been learned and that public interest in the civil-defense program has been stimulated by the unfortunate occurrences of the past month.

Fifth, the need for the institution of a nationwide program of insurance to cover damages incurred by abnormal acts of nature, including floods, droughts, hurricanes, earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes and the like, as suggested by one of our Federal housing officials. Sixth, the need for the development and execution of river basin development programs for the effective control and utilization of water resources for municipal and industrial water supply; irrigation; drainage, flood, pollution and salinity control; navigation; recreation; electric power and other related purposes.

Seventh, the need for the establishment of a national policy respecting water resources control and development designed to bring about a more equitable distribution throughout all sections of the country of the revenues collected and expended by the Federal Government for this purpose.

Action on Delaware and Lackawanna River Basins water control and development programs, which were proposed many years before Diane, would have resulted in a substantial reduction in the damages inflicted by the storm of August 18 and 19. After the disastrous floods of May 1942 in this area, which took a toll of 31 lives and caused property damages exceeding $18 million, the Congress authorized 6 flood-control projects. These were headwater impounding reservoirs on the Lackawanna River at Stillwater, on the Lehigh